ORDER D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.— Petitioners are all persons who claim to be operating service as stage carriages pursuant to inter state permits issued to them either by the transport authorities in the State of Karnataka or State of Andhra Pradesh as the routes on which the Petitioners are operating through their vehicles, are inter state routes, having their origin in one state and terminus in the other state. 2. Petitioners have approached this Court seeking for relief being aggrieved by an inter state agreement dated 7.3.2008 published in the Karnataka Gazette of the even date and marked as Annexure-B to the writ petition. An agreement that has been finalised between the States of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh in terms of provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short 'the Act') complaining that an agreement of this nature has not necessarily gone through the requisite procedure envisaged by the statute particularly, the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 88 of the Act which is a prerequisite stage that has to be gone through for publishing the draft of the proposed agreement for the awareness and response of the general public, travelling public, and even of persons operating stage carriages on the routes and when such is the position, the draft copy should have been finalised after taking into consideration such representations made by inter state persons; that in the present case though the state government claims that it had published a draft agreement in terms of notifications/publication dated 3.10.2007 Annexure-A (in W.P. No. 4905/2008), there is total variation with the proposals that had been published in the draft agreement and the final agreement in terms of Annexure-B, particularly, in respect of the some of the routes covered by this agreement and it is so indicated in respect of the routes covered by Sl. Nos. Nos. 6, 43, 68 and 69; that in respect of routes covered by these serial numbers, while the proposal was one of including the route from Chintamani Town in Karnataka to B. Kothakota in Andhra Pradesh, the final agreement, on the other hand, is a deviation in respect of the routes mentioned in the final agreement, which seeks to cover under the agreement a new route, rather an extended elongated route of the proposed route viz., Chintamani to Kadri including the extension from B. Kothakota to Kadri, which was not in the proposed agreement and likewise in the return journey, the route is sought to be extended up to Bangalore, whereas, earlier it was not operating from Chintamani to Bangalore; that the elongation of the route in both states viz., B. Kothakota to Kadri and from Chintamani to Bangalore is at variance from the proposal and to this extent, the agreement and copy produced at Annexure-B is not sustainable, for the simple reason that such final proposal having not gone through the requirement of a draft agreement being published and inviting representations from the general public and other concerned persons. 3. It is on such premise that the final agreement insofar as it is at variation with the proposal, particularly, at material variance from the draft agreement and therefore it is questioned and prayer sought for is for quashing of the agreement insofar as it goes beyond the proposed draft agreement which had been published in terms of Annexure-A dated 3.10.2007. 4. Sri S.V. Krishna Swamy, Sri B.R. Sundararaj Gupta, Sri A. Ananda Shetty, Sri Rajashekar, learned Counsel have submitted during the course of hearing that the Petitioners will be content if the relief to this extent is granted in these petitions, though they have raised several other prayers, which can be kept open. 5. Notices had been issued to the Respondents State of Karnataka, State of Andhra Pradesh and the proposed inter state operators whose routes are sought to be covered in the final agreement and where a material modification is shown in the final agreement at variance with the draft agreement. 6. On behalf of the state government, statement of objections have been filed in WP.4950/2008 (MV). Some of the private operators figuring as Respondents have also filed statement of objections in W.P. No. 10597/2008 (MV) for the 3rd Respondent. 7. 6. On behalf of the state government, statement of objections have been filed in WP.4950/2008 (MV). Some of the private operators figuring as Respondents have also filed statement of objections in W.P. No. 10597/2008 (MV) for the 3rd Respondent. 7. There is an application Misc.W. 10899/2010 in W.P. No. 10597/2008 (MV) filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation seeking for their impleadment as party Respondent. It is ordered. 8. Matters have been set down for final hearing and heard over the past two to three days. 9. I have heard Sri S.V. Krishna Swamy, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Advocate General & Sri. D. Vijaya Kumar, learned AGA for the State of Karnataka and the Officer of the State Government, so also Mr. H.B. Nagaraj, Mr. C.V. Kumar, Mr. H.B. Nagaraj, & Mr. Srikanth, learned Counsels for private Respondents. 10. I have perused the petition pleadings, so also the statement of objections. Examined the contents of the pleadings with their annexures and bestowed attention to the submissions made at the bar. Principal contentions urged on behalf of the Petitioners are that the final agreement between the two states as is recognized under Sub-section (6) of Section 88 of the Act is at material variation with the draft agreement as had been published in terms of provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 88 and therefore, to this extent, the final agreement at Annexure-B is vitiated being in violation and being at variation with the requirement of Sub-section (5) of Section 88 of the Act. 11. 11. In addition Sri S.V. Krishna Swamy and Sri Sundararaj Gupta, learned Counsel for the Petitioners have urged that the final agreement indicating the elongation of the routes over and above what had been proposed earlier is also in violation of the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Act, insofar as it is at variation with the original route of the stage carriage permit is concerned, variation cannot be for more than a distance of 24 kms and even then the variation for extension of a route assuming that it is so, on either side covering inter state distance of 24 kms; that in the cases noticed above, the final agreement provides for existing route particularly, between Chintamani and Bangalore and between B. Kothakota to Kadri involves extention beyond 24 kms and therefore, final agreement is at variation with such statutory provisions and as such cannot be sustained. 12. Appearing on behalf of the Respondent - State, learned Advocate General has very forcefully submitted that the statute does not either envisage or insist that calling for objections is a must, but it is only in the nature of representations that can be heard, before finalizing the draft agreement with the requirement of providing an opportunity to all concerned and it is only to ensure that the state government finalises its agreement with proper inputs and take that into consideration before such finalisation and it is not that the provision gives any right in favour of any of the persons to file objections to any of the proposals; that the provision is more to ensure an informed awareness on the part of the state government, before finalizing an agreement of this nature and therefore, neither the Petitioners nor any one can object with this final agreement as though persons had a right which is being affected on the publication of the final agreement nor a right in favour of some persons is affected by some part of it being at variation with the initial draft proposal and therefore it should be quashed at their instance. 13. 13. In the alternative, learned Advocate General has also submitted that the final agreement even though, it is an agreement for the purpose of Section 88 of the Act, that agreement is not an end in itself; that it is also in the nature of a proposal in the sense, with the existing route or prior route, if has to be altered or varied or modified to bring it in consonance with the enabling provisions of the agreement, it will have to necessarily go through the requirement of other statutory provisions, particularly the provisions of Section 80 and therefore, the objection raised at this point of time is premature in nature and if an objection as is sought is to be pointed out viz., the extension going beyond a maximum distance of 24 kms is factually a reality etc., that can be raised at the time, when there is a proposal for modification of an existing route in terms of this and as such the question need not be examined nor does it arise as of now. 14. It is also submitted by way of abundant caution assuming for arguments sake, but without conceding that the final agreement is at material variation with the proposed draft agreement, it can be found fault only to the extent of it being at such material variation and does not necessarily mean that the entire final agreement is per se bad in law and applying the principles of severability of the statutory provisions, to that extent, it can be sustained that the legality of the final agreement at Annexure-B can be examined on such principle, as the agreement is a statutory agreement and entered into between two state governments and if on examination applying such principle it can sustain, the agreement is for the benefit of larger public and it can be so done. 15. 15. On behalf of the private operators Sri Kumar, learned Counsel for the private Respondent and as submitted by learned Advocate General appearing for the State, submits that the final agreement need not necessarily be fully in consonance with the provisions of Section 88(5) of the Act, that being only an agreement, which is a proposal definitely will under go variation more so, when the government gets in puts by way of representations from various sectors; and therefore the argument that it cannot be at variance with the draft agreement cannot be accepted. It is also submitted that the examination on the question of the final agreement providing for a possibility of extension or variation of the route beyond 24 kms is while premature, it is not even open to the Petitioners, who have no locus standi in these petitions to question the legality of Annexure-B, particularly, as the Petitioners cannot claim right much less a right in respect of the terms of the permits and the subject matter of the agreement etc. 16. Sri S.V. Krishna Swamy, learned Counsel for the Petitioners also while adopts such arguments, submits that a particular route, which the 3rd Respondent in W.P. No. 4950/2008 is operating does not envisage a variation or a variation as is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners; that when the final agreement insofar as it relates to Sl. No. 42 in respect of the route Bangalore-Madanapalli to be extended to Tirupathi itself being in terms of draft agreement and that proposal having been finalized, there is no deviation or material variation insofar as this route is concerned even in the final agreement and therefore, the argument is not attracted in the case of route covered by Sl. No. 42 of the final agreement. 17. Such are the contours of the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties. It is in the wake of such submissions, the matter merits examination. 18. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short, the Act] is a regulatory piece of legislation to regulate the movement of mechanized vehicles on public roads. Chapter-V of this Act deals with the control of transport vehicles and this is achieved by prohibiting operation of vehicles for transporting, either goods or passengers, without a valid permit and subject to conforming to the conditions of permit. 19. Chapter-V of this Act deals with the control of transport vehicles and this is achieved by prohibiting operation of vehicles for transporting, either goods or passengers, without a valid permit and subject to conforming to the conditions of permit. 19. Section 80 of the Act envisages the procedure for applying for grant of permits. While Section 69 of the Act provides for applying for permits in general, Section 70 deals with the specific case of application of stage carriage permits, Section 71 deals with the procedure in considering such applications by the regional transport authorities and Section 72 deals with the grant or refusal of stage carriage permits, and Section 80 is general conditions and an enabling provision for applying for transport permits in general. 20. Section 88 of the Act deals with situations and circumstances for enabling the validation of permits issued by the authority in one regional or state, to be operative or valid in another region or state, when the permit is in respect of a route covering two or more regions or states. Section 88 indicates that for a stage carriage permit issued by authority to be valid in portions of route lying within the jurisdiction of another authority or region or state, it has to be countersigned by the transport authority in the other region or state. This is a condition in general for the permit issued by one authority to be valid in respect of portions of the route within the jurisdiction of another transport authority. 21. However, Sub-sections (5), (6) and (7), with which we are presently concerned and also Sub-sections (8) and (9) of Section 88, providing for a relaxation in respect of the requirement of Sub-section (1) of this Section, necessitating counter signature of the permit by the other transport authority in whose jurisdiction a portion of the route in respect of which the permit is granted by one authority may extend. Sections 80 and 88 of the Act read as under: 80. Procedure in applying for and granting permits: (1) An application for a permit of any kind may be made at any time. Sections 80 and 88 of the Act read as under: 80. Procedure in applying for and granting permits: (1) An application for a permit of any kind may be made at any time. (2) A Regional Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 66 shall not ordinarily refuse to grant an application for permit of any kind made at any time under this Act Provided that the Regional Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 66 may summarily refuse the application if the grant of any permit in accordance with the application would have the effect of increasing the number of stage carriages as fixed and specified in a notification in the Official Gazette under Clause (a) of Sub-section (3) of Section 71 or of contract carriages as fixed and specified in a notification in the Official Gazette under Clause (a) of Sub-section (3) of Section 74: Provided further that where a Regional Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 66 refuses an application for the grant of a permit of any kind under this Act, it shall give to the applicant in writing its reasons for the refusal of the same and an opportunity of being heard in the matter. (3) An application to vary the conditions of any permit, other than a temporary permit, by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or by altering the route or routes or area covered by it, or in the case of a stage carriage permit by increasing the number of trips above the specified maximum or by the variation, extension or curtailment of the route or routes or the area specified in the permit shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit: Provided that it shall not be necessary so to treat an application made by the holder of stage carriage permit who provides the only service on any route to increase the frequency of the service so provided without any increase in the number of vehicles: Provided further that, - (i) in the case of variation, the termini shall not be altered and the distance covered by the variation shall not exceed twenty-four kilometers; (ii) in the case of extension, the distance covered by extension shall not exceed twenty-four kilometers from the termini, and any such variation or extension within such limits shall be made only after the transport authority is satisfied that such variation will serve the convenience of the public and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or extended or any part thereof. (4) A Regional Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 66 may, before such date as may be specified by it in this behalf, replace any permit granted by it before the said date by a fresh permit conforming to the provisions of Section 72 or Section 74 or Section 76 or Section 79, as the case may be, and the fresh permit shall be valid for the same route or routes or the same area for which the replaced permit was valid: Provided that no condition other than a condition which was already attached to the replaced permit or which could have been attached thereto under the law in force when that permit was granted shall be attached to the fresh permit except with the consent in writing of the holder of the permit. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 81, a permit issued under the provisions of Sub-section (4) shall be effective without renewal for the remainder of the period during which the replaced permit would have been so effective xxx 88. Validation of permits for use outside region in which granted. (1) Except as may be otherwise prescribed, a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region shall not be valid in any other region, unless the permit has been countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of that other region, and a permit granted in any one State shall not be valid in any other State unless countersigned by the State Transport Authority of that other State or by the Regional Transport Authority concerned: Provided that a goods carriage permit, granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region, for any area in any other region or regions within the same State, shall be valid in that area without the countersignature of the Regional Transport Authority of the other region or of each of the other regions concerned: Provided further that where both starting point and the terminal point of a route are situate within the same State, but part of such route lies in any other State and the length or such part does not exceed sixteen kilometres, the permit shall be valid in the other State in respect of that part of the route which is in that other State notwithstanding that such permit has not been countersigned by the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority of that other State: Provided also that- (a) where a motor vehicle covered by a permit granted in one State is to be used for the purposes of defence in any other State, such vehicle shall display a certificate, in such form, and issued by such Authority, as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify, to the effect that the vehicle shall be used for the period specified therein exclusively for the purposes of defence; and (b) any such permit shall be valid in that other State notwithstanding that such permit has not been countersigned by the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority of that other State. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), a permit granted or countersigned by a State Transport Authority shall be valid in the whole State or in such regions within the State as may be specified in the permit. (3) A Regional Transport Authority when countersigning the permit may attach to the permit any condition which it might have imposed if it had granted the permit and may likewise vary any condition attached to the permit by the authority by which the permit was granted. (4) The provisions of this Chapter relating to the grant, revocation and suspension of permits shall apply to the grant, revocation and suspension of countersignatures of permits: Provided that it shall not be necessary to follow the procedure laid down in Section 80 for the grant of countersignatures of permits, where the permits granted in any one State are required to be countersigned by the State Transport Authority or another State or by the Regional Transport Authority concerned as a result of any agreement arrived at between the States after complying with the requirements of Sub-section (5). (5) Every proposal to enter into an agreement between the States to fix the number of permits which is proposed to be granted or countersigned in respect of each route or area, shall be published by each of the State Governments concerned in the Official Gazette and in any one or more of the newspapers in regional language circulating in the area or route proposed to be covered by the agreement together with a notice of the date before which representations in connection therewith may be submitted, and the date not being less than thirty days from the date of publication in the Official Gazette, on which, and the authority by which, and the time and place at which, the proposal and any representation received in connection therewith will be considered. (6) Every agreement arrived at between the States shall, in so far as it relates to the grant of countersignature of permits, be published by each of the State Governments concerned in the Official Gazette and in any one or more of the newspapers in the regional language circulating in the area or route covered by the agreement and the State Transport Authority of the State and the Regional Transport Authority concerned shall give effect to it. (7) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), a Regional Transport Authority of one region may issue a temporary permit under Section 87 to be valid in another region or State with the concurrence, given generally or for the particular occasion, of the Regional Transport Authority of that other region or of the State Transport Authority of that other State, as the case may be. (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), but subject to any rules that may be made under this Act by the Central Government the Regional Transport Authority of any one region or, as the case may be, the State Transport Authority may, for the convenience of the public, grant a special permit to any public service vehicle including any vehicle covered by a permit issued under Section 72 (including a reserve stage carriage) or under Section 74 or under Sub-section (9) of this section for carrying a passenger or passengers for hire or reward under a contract, express or implied, for the use of the vehicle as a whole without stopping to pick up or set down along the line of route passengers not included in the contract, and in every case where such special permit is granted, the Regional Transport Authority shall assign to the vehicle, for display thereon, a special distinguishing mark in the form and manner specified by the Central Government and such special permit shall be valid in any other region or State without the countersignature of the Regional Transport Authority of the other region or of the State Transport Authority of the other State, as the case may be. (9) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1) but subject to any rules that may be made by the Central Government under Sub-section (14), any State Transport Authority may, for the purpose of promoting tourism, grant permits in respect of tourist vehicles valid for the whole of India, or in such contiguous States not being less than three in number including the State in which the permit is issued as may be specified in such permit in accordance with the choice indicated in the application and the provisions of Sections 73, 74, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86 Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 87 and Section 89 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such permits. *** (11) The following shall be conditions of every permit granted under Sub-section (9), namely: (i) every motor vehicle in respect of which such permit is granted shall conform to such description, requirement regarding the seating capacity, standards of comforts, amenities and other matters, as the Central Government may specify in this behalf; (ii) every such motor vehicle shall be driven by a person having such qualifications and satisfying such conditions as may be specified by the Central Government; and (iii) such other conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (12) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), but, subject to the rules that may be made by the Central Government under Sub-section (14), the appropriate authority may, for the purpose of encouraging long distance inter-State road transport, grant in a State, national permits in respect of goods carriages and the provisions of Sections 69, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 87 and Section 89 shall, as far as may be, apply to or in relation to the grant of national permits. *** (14)(a) The Central Government may make rules for carrying out the provisions of this section. *** (14)(a) The Central Government may make rules for carrying out the provisions of this section. (b) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may be provide for all or any of the following matters, namely: (i) the authorisation fee payable of the issue of a permit referred to in Sub-sections (9) and (12); (ii) the fixation of the laden weight of the motor vehicle; (iii) the distinguishing particulars or marks to be carried or exhibited in or on the motor vehicle; (iv) the colour or colours in which the motor vehicle is to be painted; (v) such other matters as the appropriate authority shall consider in granting a national permit Explanation-In this section,- (a) "appropriate authority", in relation to a national permit, means the authority which is authorised under this Act to grant a goods carriage permit; (b) "authorisation fee" means the annual fee, not exceeding one thousand rupees, which may be charged by the appropriate authority of a State to enable a motor vehicle, covered by the permit referred to in Sub-sections (9) and (12) to be used in other States subject to the payment of taxes or fees, if any, levied by the States concerned; (c) national permit" means a permit granted by the appropriate authority to goods carriages to operate throughout the territory of India or in such contiguous States not being less than four in number, including the State in which the permit is issued as may be specified in such permit in accordance with the choice indicated in the application. 22. A perusal of Sub-sections (5), (6) and (7) of Section 88 of the Act, particularly Sub-sections (5) and (6), with which we are concerned in these petitions, indicates that these Sub-sections enable in general two agreeing states to fix the number of permits which are proposed to be granted and countersigned in respect of each route or area, in terms of an agreement entered into between the states and after having gone through the procedures envisaged in Sub-sections (5) and (6) and as contemplated in the proviso to Sub-section (4) of Section 88 of the Act, the need for obtaining countersignature every time a permit is granted within the scope of this agreement, as is otherwise required in terms of Section 80 of the Act. 23. 23. It is clear at once that the provisions of Sub-section (6) of Section 88 of the Act are enabling provisions, which enable the two state governments to enter into a reciprocal agreement or any other type of agreement, to provide a readymade permit or a permit with a countersignature in advance and which virtually when given effect to clothe a transport authority of one state the power to issue a stage carriage permit, even in respect of portions of the route lying in the other state and to be valid in the other state also, without the need of obtaining countersignature of the transport authority of the other state. 24. It is in this background of these statutory provisions and the related present issues that arise for examination in these cases are to be examined. The issues that are required to be examined, particularly in the wake of the arguments as noticed above, viz., i) As to whether a fined agreement in terms of Sub-section (6) of Section 88 of the Act can be reached without strictly following the procedure contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 88 of the Act? and ii) As to whether the final agreement can be at substantial variance with the draft agreement as initially proposed and published in respect of which representations are invited from the general public? 25. Though it is feebly contended on behalf of the private operators in these petitions that a final agreement can be at totally variance and need not remain faithfully to the draft agreement, and it is also urged that it is not capable of judicial determination as to what can be a variation in the final agreement vis-a-vis a draft proposed agreement, Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Advocate General, appearing for the state, fairly submits that it cannot be canvassed on behalf of the State that a final agreement can be at a total variance with a draft agreement, deviating in all respect from a proposed draft agreement but that it will have to be in furtherance of the draft agreement and not totally independent of the draft agreement. 26. 26. In so far as the first question is concerned, the state itself envisages a scheme that the stage for Sub-section (6) of Section 88 of the Act reaches only after going through Sub-section (5) and if one has to attribute meaning and purpose to the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 88 of the Act, the inevitable inference will be that every final agreement to be arrived at between two states or more in so far as it relates to grant of countersignature permits is concerned, is not only to be published by each of the state government in the official gazette etc., but also should necessarily be preceded by the procedures contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 88 of the Act viz., publication of the draft agreement and enabling interested persons to represent in response to the proposal, fixing a date for receipt of such representations and also fixing a time and place for personal hearing of the representators and then to finalize the draft, after showing awareness to such representations, can be issued. 27. While it is true that and even as contended by the learned Advocate General on behalf of the state, what is envisaged in Sub-section (5) of Section 88 of the Act is only an opportunity to make representations to the interested persons including persons like the Petitioners, who are stage carriage operators having some common sector with the routes that are proposed to be included within the draft agreement and mere opportunity being envisaged to such representators as per this Sub-section, does not elevate the representators to the status of any right much less a vested right. At the same time, one cannot lose sight of the fact that legislature envisages an opportunity of this nature for making representations and therefore the authority is required to show its awareness to the representation before finalizing the draft agreement to be published under Sub-section (7) and therefore the provisions of Sub-section (5) have a definite purpose to serve and it cannot either be given a go-by or wished away. Not going through the procedure contemplated in Sub-section (5) of Section 88 of the Act, defeats a salient intended legislative purpose and therefore it is inevitable to hold that the agreement to be published in terms of Sub-section (7) of Section 88 of the Act and Sub-section (6), should necessarily go through the requirements and as far as possible in its entirety in the manner as envisaged in Sub-section (5) of Section 88 of the Act. 28. That takes us to the second question. The second question is in one way inter-linking to the first question, as if it is to be inferred that the authority giving opportunity of hearing to the representators and even the state government while finalizing a draft agreement to a final agreement, has to show awareness to the representations that are to be made in response to the proposals incorporated in the draft agreement, that is a clear indication to hold that a final agreement cannot be at material variance with a draft agreement and if the proposal is for 'A' one cannot achieve 'XYZ' in the final agreement. 29. In fact, in the facts and circumstances of the present petitions, it is clearly demonstrated in the sense that while in the proposed agreement, a particular route which was sought to be covered within the scope of the agreement was, for example a stage carriage permit covering the route Chintamani in Karnataka to B Kothakota in Andhrapradesh, but the final agreement indicates that it (sic) extended up to Kadri in Andhrapradesh and likewise in the converse route from B Kothakota to Chintamani (sic) the other hand elongated up to Bangalore. 30. In transport parlance, a route as proposed is different from as a rout envisaged in the final agreement. That definitely, in my opinion, amounts to a material variation from the draft. 30. In transport parlance, a route as proposed is different from as a rout envisaged in the final agreement. That definitely, in my opinion, amounts to a material variation from the draft. While there can be possibility of increasing or decreasing the number of trips on a given route, which may not necessarily indicate the material variance with the proposal, particularly when such number of trips may depend on the volume of traffic etc., and may not cut into the interest of rival operators on the sector other than one which was proposed originally, the final agreement as contained and as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners in respect of Sl Nos 43, 68 and 69, necessarily make a material difference and therefore it is, as though in respect of the route as is mentioned at Sl Nos 43, 68 and 69 of the final agreement, it has not gone through the prerequisite of the compliance with the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 88 of the Act and therefore is virtually in negation of the first question posed for answer in these petitions viz., that in so far as such routes are concerned, it is as though the final agreement is reached even without going through the requirement of the draft agreement being published and representations invited. 31. In fact, a situation of this nature also deprives the transport authorities and the state governments from examining proper response from such representators in respect of the final agreement. A non-awareness action defeats the purpose and object of the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 88 of the Act. 32. 31. In fact, a situation of this nature also deprives the transport authorities and the state governments from examining proper response from such representators in respect of the final agreement. A non-awareness action defeats the purpose and object of the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 88 of the Act. 32. However, in this context, submission of Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Advocate General, appearing for the state, is that it cannot be said that the entire final agreement gets vitiated, assuming that there is such a defect or blemish in the final agreement; that the final agreement in so far as it remains faithful and adheres to the proposals in the draft agreement, particularly in mentioning the route, though was for the route from Chintamani to B Kothakota, so long as it confines this route, in respect of other variations, other than extending or varying the route is concerned, the final agreement cannot be found fault with and therefore applying the doctrine of severability, while the final agreement in so far as it is in consonance with the draft agreement cannot be and should not be struck down, as one wanting in compliance with the requirement of Sub-section (5) of Section 88 of the Act and it is only such offending part of the routes should be found fault with. 33. While this argument of learned Advocate General is attractive enough, there are two hurdles to accept this submission on behalf of the state. Firstly, it is not the function of the court to separate or retain by surgical process some part of the final agreement, which can be sought to be in conformity with the draft agreement, but more importantly, when the agreement is one agreement to say that of offending portion of this agreement may be quashed and to leave the rest of the portion in tact, virtually amounts to rewriting an agreement, what is more important is it can lead to a situation involving considerable extent of practical difficulties, particularly having regard to the great rivalry that is prevalent in the transport operations and more so in stage carriage operations, a court order should not give scope for confusion and further complications and difficulties and on the other hand, the purpose of people and citizens approaching this Court is not only for finality and also for clarity in the situation. It is, therefore, 1 am of the opinion that the final agreement/ notification bearing No 2 2003 dated 7-3-2008 has to be necessarily quashed for not being fully in consonance with the draft agreement, but liberty is reserved to the state government to come up with a final agreement to be published in terms of Sub-section (6) of Section 88 of the Act in furtherance with the draft agreement/notification in No 2 2003 dated 1-10-2007 and after bestowing its attention to the representations that the authority has already received and to publish such final agreement/notification in accordance with law. In so far as other routes not covered under the draft agreement/notification are concerned, it is inevitable that the government has to go through the procedure of initial publication in terms of Sub-section (5) of Section 88 of the Act and thereafter finalize the same after receiving and considering the representations etc. 34. However, the argument invoking the doctrine of severability advanced by the learned Advocate General on behalf of the state government, can be accepted in a slightly different manner, in the sense the grievance aired by the Petitioners by pointing out the variance in the final agreement/notification and in respect of the particular routes covered at Sl No 43, 68 and 69, as they figure in the routes mentioned in Annexure-VIII and IX to the final agreement/notification and as the Petitioners have no grievance in these petitions, the agreement relating to routes covered and mentioned in Annexure-I to VII and which, according to the submission of learned Advocate General, are routes which are either in full or in part covered by nationalization schemes published by the state governments under Chapter-IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 or Chapter-VII of the 1988 Act, there is no need to quash the agreement in so far as it relates to the routes mentioned in Annexure-I to VII appended to the agreement/notification. 35. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above and a writ of certiorari will issue and the final agreement/notification in No 2 2003 dated 7-3-2008 is quashed in so far as it relates to Annexure-VIII and IX appended to the agreement/ notification are concerned, reserving liberty as indicated above. 36. Rule made absolute.